![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Yesterday I finished up in the British Library, which means I have read about fifty books, and have another fifty English civil war books to go. Most of what I read in the BL were nineteenth and early twentieth century; most of what I have left is twentieth century.
On yesterday's count 27 books were For the King, 9 books For Parliament, with a surprising number labelled neutral. However I'd caution that my labelling at this stage is probably inconsistent and all of it will have to be checked. It's also not as clear cut as it sounds.
There is a distinct pattern emerging: early 19th century books tend to be For the King, mostly very unquestioningly, Then in the late 19th century, after Carlysle's book, and about when people are arguing about whether there should be a statue to Cromwell, we see a flurry of Pro-Parliamnent books, and some rather neutral For the King texts. Immediately after there is a small flurry of mildy Royalist texts, and then, in the 1900s, a number of texts that are "Royalist" in the sense that they are oppositional to the invasions of Ireland and Scotland by the Protectorate.
The really *strong* pro King books, don't appear until the 1930s, the point at which Geoffrey Trease started taking a hard look at historical novels for children. So my rough conclusion is that Trease was not wrong, but that his take on the situation was rather snapshot.
About 50 more books to go (moving up to the present day), but I can work at home from now on, which means I can go from four books a day to six. With luck I'll be writing this up in April.
Anyone got a suitable conference for a Moretti-ish style analysis of children's historical novels?
On yesterday's count 27 books were For the King, 9 books For Parliament, with a surprising number labelled neutral. However I'd caution that my labelling at this stage is probably inconsistent and all of it will have to be checked. It's also not as clear cut as it sounds.
There is a distinct pattern emerging: early 19th century books tend to be For the King, mostly very unquestioningly, Then in the late 19th century, after Carlysle's book, and about when people are arguing about whether there should be a statue to Cromwell, we see a flurry of Pro-Parliamnent books, and some rather neutral For the King texts. Immediately after there is a small flurry of mildy Royalist texts, and then, in the 1900s, a number of texts that are "Royalist" in the sense that they are oppositional to the invasions of Ireland and Scotland by the Protectorate.
The really *strong* pro King books, don't appear until the 1930s, the point at which Geoffrey Trease started taking a hard look at historical novels for children. So my rough conclusion is that Trease was not wrong, but that his take on the situation was rather snapshot.
About 50 more books to go (moving up to the present day), but I can work at home from now on, which means I can go from four books a day to six. With luck I'll be writing this up in April.
Anyone got a suitable conference for a Moretti-ish style analysis of children's historical novels?
